Just net it out for me, please
The biggest issues are often the thorniest, and if you’re overcommitted you probably don’t have time to bone up on everything. Here at ReelFacts we boil down complex issues through short, engaging video segments along with detailed write-ups.
So if you are concerned that Congress is putting politics over people, the traditional media is more concerned with ratings than real problems, or you just want to get a firmer grasp on what’s happening around you…this is the place to start. Get the facts, and then get involved. Welcome!
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
Reuters, Dec. 9, 2010
Citigroup Inc named U.S. President Barack Obama’s former budget director as a senior global banking adviser on Thursday, strengthening its ties to high-profile former officials the same week the bailed-out bank finished shrugging off U.S. government ownership. Full article here.
by Marian Wang, ProPublica
The Environmental Protection Agency issued an emergency order yesterday accusing a natural gas driller of contaminating water supplies in North Texas and giving the company 48 hours to provide potable water to those affected.In a letter sent to the drilling company, Range Resources, [PDF], the agency said it had determined an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to a public aquifer through methane contamination related to the company’s oil and gas operations in the area. Two private wells had already been contaminated, according to the EPA:
Full article here.
by Marie C. Baca
ProPublica, Dec. 9, 2010
Joseph Pettey is the owner of Pettey Oilfield Services Inc., and the 2003 Virginia Oil and Gas Festival Man of the Year. Thomas E. Stewart is a third-generation driller who lobbies the government on behalf of energy companies. Both sit on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission [1], which is increasingly positioning itself as an authority on drilling-related issues like hydraulic fracturing [2].
Full article here.
Why are the same Wall Street banks that lobbied so hard to dilute the passages in the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill banning proprietary trading now jettisoning their proprietary trading groups, without so much as a whimper?
The law directs regulators to study the prop trading ban for another 15 months before deciding how to enforce it: why is Wall Street caving now?
The many answers offered by Wall Street insiders in response boil down to a simple sentence: The banks have no intention of ceasing their prop trading. They are merely disguising the activity, by giving it some other name.
A former employee of JPMorgan, for instance, wrote to say that the unit he recently worked for, called the Chief Investment Office, advertised itself largely as a hedging operation but was in fact making massive bets with JPMorgan’s capital. And it would of course continue to do so. JPMorgan didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The fullest explanation came from a former Lehman Brothers corporate bond salesman named Robert Wosnitzer, who is now at New York University, writing a dissertation on the history of proprietary trading. He’s been interviewing Wall Street bond traders, he said, and they have been surprisingly open about their intentions to exploit one obvious loophole in the new law. continue reading
Progress in deciding the fine print of the financial reform bill has been limited. It is a sure bet that the infighting between those who believe in government regulation and those who oppose it will do nothing but heat up as the election season moves into full swing. This article lays out how financial firms are maneuvering to anticipate the new regulatory future.
The Regulatory Pregame: Laying Bets on the Winners
By SUSANNE CRAIG and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN September 29, 2010
On Sunday afternoon, dozens of state regulators packed into a windowless conference room at a Marriott in Baltimore for a panel titled “Navigating Reform: Where Do We Go From Here?”
The panelists included Washington regulators — the very people who will decide how to put to work the new Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul bill passed in July.
“What is the S.E.C. doing to define venture capital funds?” one attendee asked Jennifer B. McHugh, a senior adviser to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairwoman, Mary L. Schapiro.
“And what about financial advisers?” asked another audience member.
To each such question — and there were many — Ms. McHugh’s answers were both consistent and noncommittal: “That is a good question, and we’re working on it.”
Welcome to the moment of maximum uncertainty.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the nation’s most comprehensive financial overhaul since the Great Depression, is now the law of the land. But with a few exceptions, like the creation of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, much of the detail on how those new rules will work is in the hands of the Obama administration’s financial regulators, who have been given enormous latitude to come up with the new rules of the road.
Compounding the uncertainty is the fact that the country is a little more than a month away from midterm elections, when Republicans are expected to gains seats, perhaps enough to take over the House of Representatives. Should that happen, a serious effort will most likely be made to roll back parts of the law, or at least minimize its effects. Continue reading here
Although coverage of financial regulation has disappeared from the mainstream media lately, this article by Gretchen Morgenson reveals how the battle between the banks and the regulators continues to rage behind the scenes. Who will control the derivatives clearinghouses and who will be allowed to trade on them are key issues that the big banks want to determine. The effectiveness of Obama’s financial reform bill hangs in the balance. We should all be aware that the backroom strong-arming is underway.
It’s Not Over Until It’s in the Rules
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: August 28, 2010 The New York times
Having passed the Dodd-Frank Act earlier this summer, the bill that aspires to reorder our financial universe in the wake of the most serious economic crisis in generations, Congress has moved on to other matters. Regulators are left to write the rules that will make financial reform a reality — or not — and are beginning that laborious process.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is one regulator with a lot on its plate. Last month, the commission published a list of 30 areas related to over-the-counter derivatives that require new rules. Derivatives, you might remember, are the exotic securities that Wall Street engineered to hedge risk, only to discover during the mortgage meltdown that the contracts — which linked together a dizzying number of financial players — actually amplified the severity of the crisis.
On Aug. 20, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission sponsored an open forum on derivatives regulation. Industry representatives, trade groups, investor advocates and regulators discussed how to put into practice Congress’s desire for a more closely supervised market in derivatives. continue reading…
This article by Matt Taibbi takes you behind the scenes to reveal the political deal-making that resulted in Obama’s financial reform bill. Taibbi is a controversial writer with a penchant for profanity and an innate skepticism about many of our politicians. Although you may or may not agree with Taibbi’s conclusions, he always seems to have the “inside story.”
Wall Street’s Big Win - Finance reform won’t stop the high-risk gambling that wrecked the economy – and Republicans aren’t the only ones to blame
By Matt Taibbi – Published August 4, 2010 Rolling Stone PoliticsCue the credits: the era of financial thuggery is officially over. Three hellish years of panic, all done and gone – the mass bankruptcies, midnight bailouts, shotgun mergers of dying megabanks, high-stakes SEC investigations, all capped by a legislative orgy in which industry lobbyists hurled more than $600 million at Congress. It all supposedly came to an end one Wednesday morning a few weeks back, when President Obama, flanked by hundreds of party flacks and congressional bigwigs, stepped up to the lectern at an extravagant ceremony to sign into law his sweeping new bill to clean up Wall Street.
Obama’s speech introducing the massive law brimmed with celebratory finality. He threw around lofty phrases like “never again” and “no more.” He proclaimed the end of unfair credit-card-rate hikes and issued a fatwa on abusive mortgage practices and the shady loans that helped fuel the debt bubble. The message was clear: The sheriff was padlocking the Wall Street casino, and the government was taking decisive steps to unfuck our hopelessly broken economy.
But is the nightmare really over, or is this just another Inception-style trick ending? It’s hard to figure, given all the absurd rhetoric emanating from the leadership of both parties. Obama and the Democrats boasted that the bill is the “toughest financial reform since the ones we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression” – a claim that would maybe be more impressive if Congress had passed any financial reforms since the Great Depression, or at least any that didn’t specifically involve radically undoing the Depression-era laws.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were predictably hysterical. They described the new law – officially known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – as something not far from a full-blown Marxist seizure of the means of production. House Minority Leader John Boehner shrieked that it was like “killing an ant with a nuclear weapon,” apparently forgetting that the ant crisis in question wiped out about 40 percent of the world’s wealth in a little over a year, making its smallness highly debatable. continue reading…
A second article to read was written by Duncan Currie, deputy managing editor of National Review Online.
Punting On Financial ReformSen. Ted Kaufman (D., Del.) supported the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation, but he also expressed “significant reservations” just before casting his vote. “This was a time for Congress to draw hard lines that get directly at the structural problems that afflict Wall Street and our largest banks,” Kaufman said. “Congress largely has decided instead to punt decisions to the regulators, saddling them with a mountain of rulemakings and studies.”
Whether one favors or opposes the 2,300-page bill — which President Obama signed into law on Wednesday — it’s hard to disagree with that assessment. Rather than adopt clear, concise new guidelines on leverage, systemic risk, derivatives, proprietary trading, and other hot-button issues, Congress embraced ambiguous language and outsourced the relevant rulemaking to Washington bureaucrats. Indeed, federal regulatory agencies have been given broad discretion over how to implement Dodd-Frank, which explains why its long-term impact is so uncertain. According to analysts at the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm, the legislation will require at least 243 rulemakings, and probably many more. (The 243 figure refers only “to explicit rulemakings in the bill, and thus likely represents a significant underestimate.”) As Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) himself told reporters after finalizing the measure, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.” continue reading…
Consumers Clamoring for a Leader
Posted by Joe Nocera Published: August 20, 2010 The New York Times
So it turns out that the Elizabeth Warren rap video that went “viral” this week is actually a made-in-Hollywood production.
You know the video, don’t you? The one in which a struggling comedian named Ryan Anthony Lumas, dressed in a cowboy outfit, high-steps his way through two minutes of catchy, if ersatz, rap, with lyrics like Sheriff Warren’s what we need-o/ She’s not about the money and the green-o… /She wants to expose the banks and all the greed/ and get rid of unnecessary fees/Which means more money in my pocket?
The group behind the video is the Main Street Brigade. But when you call the Main Street Brigade, you get the Santa Monica office of Hans Zimmer, a prolific Hollywood composer. The two women listed as the Brigade’s contacts run Mr. Zimmer’s new philanthropic/activist arm. continue reading…
Why Elizabeth Warren Will Likely Be Confirmed
by Noam Scheiber Published: July 27, 2010 The New Republic
Administration, Hill, and industry sources do the math on what could be the summer’s most contentious confirmation battle. Last week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd aroused the ire of progressive activists when he wondered whether Elizabeth Warren, the former Harvard Law professor who is a leading candidate to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, would be “confirmable.” “There’s a serious question about it,” he said on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show.”
Dodd’s concern is legitimate given that a mere 41 votes can block action in the Senate, and that the GOP has been willing to filibuster even seemingly popular proposals. But, after surveying a dozen insiders over the last few days—congressional aides, industry officials, progressive activists, and a few administration officials—I’ve concluded that the odds are good that Warren would be confirmed if nominated by the White House. (The White House itself agrees—it is “confident she is confirmable,” according to a spokesperson.)
Most telling is the basic Senate math. According to two senior Senate aides—one whose boss favors Warren and the other whose boss would prefer an alternative—pretty much every Senate Democrat (and Independent) would find it agonizingly difficult to join a filibuster of Warren’s nomination, which would mean opposing an outspoken consumer advocate at a time of deep anti-Wall Street sentiment. Simply put: Hoping the president will choose another candidate—something that describes several Senate Democrats—isn’t the same as opposing his eventual nominee. continue reading…
Elizabeth Warren, On the Emerging Consumer Financial Protections
Posted by Stephanie Vallejo July 12, 2010 Political Intelligence
Q. When the conference committee met to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the financial regulations bill, pressure from lobbyists for car dealers and banks, among others, threatened to undercut plans to create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and you said any further weakening would render the agency a waste of time. Now that the bill is completed, and exemptions were made for some in the industry including car dealers on car loans, what’s your verdict? A waste of time? An ironclad protector for borrowers? Something in between?
EW: The new agency has teeth and a lot of independence, with enough rule-writing and enforcement authority to begin to fix a broken consumer credit market. It isn’t perfect, and the auto dealer exception is outrageous. But I kept waiting for an incoming missile that would mean the bank lobbyists had made good on their vow to kill the agency — and that never happened.
Q. There were certain principles many supporters hoped the bill would provide to the agency, including independence from outside interference, the ability to shield its budget from congressional and corporate interference, and provisions giving it enough muscle to enforce its regulations. On which issues does the resulting bill hold up well? Where does it fall a little short?
EW: The new law guarantees the agency meaningful autonomy. It has a protected funding stream, an independent director appointed by the President, and strong rule-writing authority. The agency also has the power to enforce rules against the big banks and, for the first time, against the non-bank originators of mortgages and other credit products that have done so much harm. I had hoped that Congress would restore the rights of states to provide greater oversight and accountability with their own rules, especially because they can serve such an important early warning role, but that was a bridge too far. more…
For more background on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau click here.
The President calls out Republicans for blocking campaign finance reforms that would address the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate money into elections.
Weekly Address: No Corporate Takeover of Our Democracy – August 21, 2010In July, Target gave $150,000 to the anti-gay, anti-worker candidate for Gov. of MN. Last week, a quarter million people pledged to boycott Target. Sign the petition here.
Paid for by MoveOn.org Political Action, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
For more background on Citizens United v. FEC click here.
What is fracking?
Where is fracking taking place?
What is being done to regulate fracking?
How can you get involved?
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, is a process that results in the creation of fractures in rocks. The most important industrial use is in stimulating oil and gas wells, where hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 60 years in more than one million wells. On the other hand, high-volume horizontal slickwater fracturing is a recent phenomenon.
To fracture rock and release natural gas deposits, over 500 chemicals, along with thousands of gallons of water, are injected deep into the earth, often contaminating local ground water systems. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed under the Bush/Cheney administration, exempts hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, oil and gas companies are not required to disclose the chemicals they use (many of which have been found to be known neurotoxins and carcinogens), and are exempt from EPA regulatory control. It is also referred to as the “Halliiburton Loophole”.
Related articles and videos:
From Vanity Fair, “A Colossal Fracking Mess: The dirty truth behind the new natural gas.”
Gaslands: The Movie is currently available on HBO and will be distributed in December 2010.
Where is fracking taking place?
34 states in the continental U.S. are currently subject to unregulated fracking:
The Marcellus Shale represents a huge potential drilling opportunity. Oil and gas companies are currently targeting New York’s southern tier counties including Thompkins, Sullivan, Delaware and Ulster counties.
What is being done to regulate fracking?
National: The FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act) are proposed legislation intended to repeal the Halliburton Loophole and to require the natural gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use. The House version (HR 2766) was introduced by Reps. Diana Degette, Jared Polis, and Maurice Hinchey. Sens. Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer introduced the bill to the Senate (S.1215). Both bills remain in Committee
Regional: New York state legislature has tabled a bill calling for a moratorium on gas drilling. Several legislators support the gas companies. Many local property owners, suffering from the economic downturn, are being offered lucrative leases by the gas companies. Local citizens are mounting a grassroots effort to support the moratorium and to ban drilling.
Ask your representatives to support the FRAC Act, now:
http://gaslandthemovie.com/take-action/contact-elected-officials
Support the moratorium to suspend gas drilling in New York State:
http://gaslandthemovie.com/alerts/view/6
